McAfee consented to have plaintiff James Linlor’s trademark case proceed before a magistrate judge, said its signed consent form Thursday (docket 5:23-cv-00385) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. Pro se plaintiff Linlor alleged in a Jan. 26 complaint that McAfee has been “cybersquatting” on his rightfully owned cyberguard.com internet domain name for 15 years, and McAfee’s misconduct blocked him from actively growing his cybersecurity business (see 2301310011). Linlor previously consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in his case.
Following its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law Monday in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin, or alternatively a new trial there (see 2303010018), internet service provider Grande Communications Network is now taking its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said its notice of appeal Wednesday (docket 1:17-cv-00365). A jury in Austin awarded $46.77 million in statutory damages Nov. 3 to several record labels for Grande’s willful contributory infringement of 1,403 copyrighted works (see 2211040023). The labels alleged Grande turned a blind eye to the wrongdoing of its subscribers. Grande now asserts there was “insufficient evidence” at trial of direct infringement that warranted holding it liable for the significant money damages. Grande also asserts “prejudicial errors" detrimental to its cause resulted in an unfair trial.
Averon’s first amended complaint alleging AT&T misappropriated its trade secrets should be dismissed in its entirety because all its claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine, preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, or are “insufficiently pleaded,” said the public redacted version Tuesday of AT&T’s motion to dismiss. The motion (docket 1:22-cv-01341) in U.S. District Court for Delaware was filed Feb. 21 under seal (see 2302220021). AT&T is alleged to have courted Averon as a business partner for its passwordless authentication technology, only to use that technology to form the ZenKey joint venture with T-Mobile and Verizon as an Averon competitor. “Averon attempts to transform its short-lived tenure as a contractual recipient of AT&T’s signaling services into a sprawling sundry of claims,” said AT&T. Those claims are “factually unsupported” because AT&T “lawfully terminated the parties’ contracts,” it said. “More importantly at this stage, the claims fail to plead viable causes of action,” it said. The economic loss doctrine bars Averon’s claims for fraud and misrepresentation and intentional interference with prospective economic relations “because each is premised on alleged economic losses stemming from AT&T’s purported breach of contract,” it said. Each of Averon’s nine claims has “a fatal pleading deficiency,” said AT&T. Some counts “fail to state a claim because Averon admits its alleged trade secrets are unrelated to the parties’ most recent contract, which is the only plausible source of any confidentiality obligation of AT&T,” it said. Other counts don’t state claims “because Averon admits its alleged trade secrets are unrelated to the purportedly breached contracts, and the contract claims are barred by an expired two-year contractual limitations period,” it said. Averon’s claim for deceptive advertising fails because Averon doesn’t establish “statutory standing, fails to identify an actual advertisement, and the pleading is devoid of an actionable misstatement,” it said.
Defendant Grande Communications Networks renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, and alternatively requests a new trial, the internet service provider told the U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin Monday (docket 1:17-cv-00365). A jury awarded $46.77 million in statutory damages Nov. 3 to several record labels for Grande’s willful contributory infringement of 1,403 copyrighted works (see 2211040023). The labels alleged Grande turned a blind eye to the wrongdoing of its subscribers. Grande maintains there was “insufficient evidence” of direct infringement that warranted holding the ISP liable, said its renewed motion. “The evidence at trial was also legally insufficient to prove that Grande was willfully blind to specific instances of direct copyright infringement,” it said. The evidence was insufficient to prove Grande’s contributory infringement was willful, it said. Grande says there were “prejudicial errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence, resulting in an unfair trial, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, and excessive damages.” That warrants granting Grande a new trial if the court denies its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it said.
Record label plaintiffs suing Frontier Communications in a stayed suit asked U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres for the Southern District of New York to get the litigation moving again. In a letter Monday in docket 1:21-cv-05050, the plaintiffs said discovery hasn't started in Frontier's bankruptcy proceeding because that court is still waiting for the District Court to decide on a June 2021 motion to withdraw that would consolidate the plaintiffs' different copyright claims against Frontier into one proceeding. Meanwhile, the labels' litigation is stayed pending decision on the withdrawal motion, they said. The labels said they're "eager to prosecute their claims and enforce their valuable copyrights." Frontier outside counsel didn't comment.
Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria signed an order Friday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) directing the clerk to enter a $500,000 judgment against defendant Dynasty Marketing Group. In so doing, Trenga adopted the Feb. 6 report and recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge John Anderson that Marriott International is entitled to the $500,000 in statutory damages against Dynasty for willfully infringing Marriott’s trademark by impersonating Marriott telemarketers in its robocalling phone solicitations (see 2302070029). Anderson also recommended the court grant Marriott’s motion for summary judgment against Dynasty and that an injunction be entered enjoining the defendant from future conduct that infringes Marriott’s trademarks. No oppositions were filed to Anderson’s recommendations, said Trenga’s order.
AT&T seeks the dismissal with prejudice of all of Averon’s misappropriation of trade secrets claims, said its motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-01341) in U.S. District Court for Delaware. U.S. District Judge Todd Hughes granted AT&T’s unopposed motion Wednesday to file under seal its brief in support of its dismissal motion. AT&T is alleged to have courted Averon as a business partner for its passwordless authentication technology, only to use that technology to form the ZenKey joint venture with T-Mobile and Verizon as a competitor to Averon (see 2301100002).
Allegations by BMG and its affiliates that Altice turned a blind eye to music piracy committed by its high-speed internet subscribers (see 2212150019) should be dismissed because the plaintiffs fail to state a vicarious liability claim, said Altice’s motion Friday (docket 2:22-cv-00471) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall. BMG’s case against Altice “is the latest attempt by the music industry to engineer a copyright-liability regime” that makes internet service providers “responsible for all infringement that takes place on the internet,” said the motion. The record labels would “thereby turn ISPs into their de facto enforcers,” it said. The plaintiffs don’t, and couldn’t, allege Altice “stores or hosts infringing materials, that an Altice internet connection offers some unique ability to transfer music files, or that Altice could block access to such files,” it said. Nor can they assert Altice has any particular financial interest in its subscribers’ unauthorized access to music, it said. The plaintiffs allege Altice profited from the infringement because it collected subscription fees from the infringing subscribers and didn’t terminate their accounts, said Altice. “But that is legally irrelevant to vicarious liability, because it does not claim that Altice benefits from infringement,” it said. The plaintiffs need to allege Altice has a direct financial interest in the infringing activity to satisfy a claim of vicarious liability, it said.
Amazon filed notice Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis of its motion to dismiss the amended trademark infringement complaint by Annie Oakley Enterprises and its owner Renee Gabet that was pending before the case was transferred from the Northern District of Indiana in Fort Wayne at Amazon’s request. The plaintiffs allege Amazon turned a blind eye to the infringing conduct of its third-party sellers. Briefing in Northern Indiana on Amazon’s April 29 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim “has been complete” since May 27, said Wednesday’s notice (docket 1:22-cv-02246). “Amazon respectfully requests a ruling on that motion, as plaintiffs are now actively pursuing burdensome discovery,” it said. Amazon asked for the case to be transferred to Southern Indiana because the plaintiffs twice previously sued Amazon for trademark infringement in that venue.
BMI contacted Holly’s Diner more than 30 times since September 2019 in an effort to “educate” the Charlottesville, Virginia, establishment about its Copyright Act obligations to buy a public performance license for musical compositions in the BMI “repertoire,” said a complaint Monday (docket 1:23-cv-00198) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria. The plaintiffs, including BMI and seven individual music publishers, allege seven claims of willful copyright infringement, based on the unauthorized public performance of musical works in the BMI catalog, it said. Holly’s Diner representatives didn’t respond Tuesday to requests for comment.